Excerpt: - - the jurisdiction of the court trying a remanded case like the present one depends entirely on the order of the high court when remanding the case......taken at a fairly early stage in the first court itself in this case. but even otherwise the objection is now taken in the same proceedings and i see no ground for refusing to give effect to it. i must therefore set aside all the orders of the taluk munsif of madura and direct him to forward the records to the town munsif's court for disposal of the case. it is to be regretted that more care was not taken in reading the high court's decree before the taluk munsif began to deal with it.5. in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs for either side in this civil revision petition or in the lower courts after the remand.

Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. In this case the main point taken before me is that the High Court having remanded the case for trial by the Munsif's Court of Madura Town the Court of Madura Taluk which is a different Court altogether has no jurisdiction to deal with it or pass any orders in it; and consequently the orders passed by that Court must all be set aside and the Town Court directed to dispose of the case.

2. This argument seems to me to be sound. Though the judgment of the High Court indicated 'the Court of first instance 'as the Court to try the remanded case that Court had been abolished and the decree therefore specified the Town Court as the Court to try the case in quite unambiguous language. So long as that direction stands I must hold that the Town Court alone can deal with the case.

3. The learned Vakil for the Respondent attempted to contend that I should apply the principle underlying Section 21 C.P.C. to this case and refuse to give effect to the objection as it was not taken at the earliest stage in the Taluk Munsif's Court which actually was dealing with the case. It is conceded Section 21 will not in terms apply. I am unable to accept the argument that any principle underlying it applies to this case. The jurisdiction of the Court trying a remanded case like the present one depends entirely on the order of the High Court when remanding the case. It is not a matter of doubt or difficulty. Nor is it a matter for the parties to make up their minds about. The ruling in Venkatrama Vathiar v. Sambasiva Aiyar (1919) 37 M.L.J. 349 : : (1919)37MLJ349 is not applicable to the present case at all. There the objection was taken to the High Court's jurisdiction in a subsequent suit by a party to the High Court suit in which it had been alleged that he was resident in Madras to give jurisdiction to the High Court. The party had not 'disputed this averment but actually submitted to the trial. He could not afterwards be permitted to assert that he was not so resident and object to the Court's jurisdiction. If he had raised the objection in the High Court suit itself it would have been a matter for that Court to decide and its decision could not have been attacked collaterally in another suit. That case is thus entirely different from the present one.

4. The objection as to jurisdiction was taken at a fairly early stage in the first Court itself in this case. But even otherwise the objection is now taken in the same proceedings and I see no ground for refusing to give effect to it. I must therefore set aside all the orders of the Taluk Munsif of Madura and direct him to forward the records to the Town Munsif's Court for disposal of the case. It is to be regretted that more care was not taken in reading the High Court's decree before the Taluk Munsif began to deal with it.

5. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs for either side in this Civil Revision Petition or in the lower Courts after the remand.